0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 20,928 Given: 18,995 |
Bump.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,258 Given: 3,510 |
The people in brown+Malta should feel closer to each other than they do now, but there is a rivalry about who is "whiter" and less Mediterranean
Especially that guy tietar would associate himself with Scandinavians if he could
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,479 Given: 5,059 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,258 Given: 3,510 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 174 Given: 41 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 252 Given: 89 |
To answer the original question, because Romance is a unique language family that, unlike others which formed in more "organic" ways through migrations and such, was the result of empire. The largest and most organized empire in the ancient world needed language to administer its subject peoples. Latinization is known to be a distinct process, and affected a large part of Europe. People learned the language as part of the society that encompassed them (being beneficial often), and in some cases because they were forced. I used to believe the overly simplistic ideas that it was all because of large migrations of actual Romans, but that's not that accurate in reality. There may have been a little in all the regions colonized but the main population was still the native ones. Also, colonists were brought from around the empire and people were relocated to suit the rulers' needs.
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spa...ugal_dna.shtmlOriginally Posted by Peterski
This article argues otherwise. It says that a low amount, probably ranging between 1-15% of Roman genes are found in various places of Iberia. Just because Iberia has high R1b doesn't mean it's the same clade as the kind in Italy. Not to mention some subtle anthropological differences.
This autosomal map someone posted earlier is interesting though. It seems each of the Romance speaking regions of Europe are roughly equidistant from the Italian center, but go in different directions of it (Romanian is a bit further away but not that much more). Maybe that reflects earlier patterns of population and geographical distribution though. Still a lot of unanswered questions.
I guess come to think of it though, other language families that spread through conquest may not have such dissimilar situations. Like the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and Celts in Wales or Ireland (I believe the language started in Central Europe originally), South Slavs in the Balkans, Maygars in Hungary, Turks in Anatolia, IE Indo-Aryans and Iranians in South Asia and West Asia, respectively. Elite dominance seems to be a common theme.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,668 Given: 1,754 |
In England they have never followed the religion of the Germans. The local people passed from the paganism of the Druids to Christianity during V and VI century A.D... long before anglo-saxon invasion.
At the time of anglo-saxon invasion most of germanics were already converted to Christianity.
In England they have never worshiped ancient Germanic Gods .. because there were NO GERMANIC GODS AT ALL.
In accordance with the ONLY reliable sources TACITUS AND JULIUS CAESAR.. the barbarian Germanics whorshiped the nature.. a river... a tree... NO GODS..
The Germans were not sophisticated enough to worship gods
Odin (or Wotan) or Thor ( who were not gods at all ) beliefe is a legend/myth which arose during the middle age in ICELAND..from a Christian Monk immagination..
Old Norse religion contains "huge gaps", .. it is very difficult to call it "religion".
The sagas of Icelanders are now regarded by most accademic scholars as historical fiction rather than as detailed historical records.
Sorry for the ASATRU followers but their sources are MARVEL'S COMICS.
Last edited by renaissance12; 03-13-2018 at 09:10 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks